--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

These translation products, called vector proteins, are functionless unless they form legible Chinese characters, in which case they serve the real function of writing. This coupling of artificial genetic causation to the real world of language makes evolutionary experimentation possible in a context where innovation can have a richness of variety and a depth of causal complexity that at least hints at what is needed to explain the complexity of bacterial proteomes. In order for this possibility to be realized, we here provide a complete Stylus genome as an experimental starting point.

Kinda goofy, but they built a 70,000 word genome. Not a small amount of work. This was done and written up by May 2011. And then, did they try to 'evolve' it?

Guesses:1) They did, it works, shhh....2) DI gets into a fight: providing a fitness landscape is "smuggling information" in even though that is exactly what the environment does in evolution, crap our analogy defeats our point...shh3) The Chinese speaker bailed 4) The bug evolved into the prolific writings of VJTorley, translated and dumped onto UD for us.

The parts in Avida are the individual steps in the process. If any of the steps in the process are missing, Avida will fail to calculate the EQU function. In this sense Pennock is correct, but we will discuss whether he is correct with respect to the other terms of Beheís definition.

Isn't the EQU function the irreducibly complex system, and Avida just the environment in which it dwells?

Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedinís geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedinís model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

-xposted from uncommon thread

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedinís geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedinís model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedinís geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedinís model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I see Bio-Complexity has posted their 3rd! (review) article of 2014, by David Snoke. As in "Behe and Snoke." Champagne corks popping!!!!

What is odd to me is that it seemed to get 0 fanfare, from UD, DI news, ENV.... at least that I saw or can find by google.

True, the subject is genuinely embarrassing: "Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design." Snoke went to a conference that featured Systems Biology, declares it springs from ID.

But why the silence?

Quote

..in 2001 I wrote:A theory of design can in principle be predictive andquantitative. For example, a computer chip manufacturer,which takes apart a chip made by a rivalcompany, proceeds on the assumption that the circuitsare well designed; this does not lead them toend their investigation, but rather, drives their studyof the chip. The good-design assumption leads tospecific predictions and applications, e.g., the predictionthat it is unlikely to find wires which take upmetal and space but serve no purpose, so that thereshould be few wires which are dead ends, with theapplication that studying any particular wire is likelyto be useful. A bad-design assumption (e.g. that thechip maker made many random circuits and thenjust picked out the ones that worked) would givevery different predictions.

Hmm.... so "bad design" isn't a religious statement. The ID design inference is, and has been, to good design only.

Lots of "there is no junk" and the that the language "design or function or mechanism"="Designed Functions and God's Machines."

How many papers did Bio-Complexity manage to publish this year? A grand total of four! Why, that's 1/8th of a paper per member of the editorial team. By any measure, this is simply astounding productivity. They can be proud of how much they have added to the world's knowledge!

Looking a little deeper, we see that of these four, only one is labeled as a "research article". Two are "critical reviews" and one is a "critical focus". And of these four stellar contributions, one has 2 out of the 3 authors on the editorial team, two are written by members of the editorial team, leaving only one contribution having no one on the editorial team. And that one is written by Winston Ewert, who is a "senior researcher" at Robert J. Marks II's "evolutionary informatics lab". In other words, with all the ideas that ID supporters are brimming with, they couldn't manage to publish a single article by anyone not on the editorial team or directly associated with the editors.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Here we are, 2/3 of the way through 2015, and Biocomplexity has an outstanding -0- publications.

30 or so editors, the work of the full-time research staff of the Biologic institute.......

But as of June they do have a new editor in chief. I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed - us for not noticing, or them for being so irrelevant that nobody noticed, not us and not UD either.

I wonder if Editor Marks will bring back his "Galapagos Finch" character he used to post as on UD. ¬†That would make their phony science rag almost worth reading. ¬†Almost. ¬†

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we‚Äôre at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Here we are, 2/3 of the way through 2015, and Biocomplexity has an outstanding -0- publications.

30 or so editors, the work of the full-time research staff of the Biologic institute.......

But as of June they do have a new editor in chief. I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed - us for not noticing, or them for being so irrelevant that nobody noticed, not us and not UD either.

Hmm, there have been no publications in 'Bio-Complexity' this year, including since Marks became editor-in-chief, so what is editor-in-chief Marks chiefly editing? And what was the former editor-in-chief chiefly editing?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27